MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1606990256 · doi:10.3280/foru2009-002011

An Historic Overview of the IAPG: The Beginnings of IAGP and its Later Development

2009· article· en· W1606990256 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raymond Battegay

Bibliographic record

VenueFORUM · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup psychotherapyPolitical scienceLibrary sciencePsychologySociologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

- This paper gives a brief historic overview of IAGP. When the first International Congress of Group Psychotherapy was held in Toronto, Canada, in 1954, J L Moreno initiated the formation of the International Committee of Group Psychotherapy whose name was later changed to the International Council of Group Psychotherapy. At the fifth International Congress of Group Psychotherapy held in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1973, the name was again changed and the International Association of Group Psychotherapy (IAGP) was born. Approximately every third year since that time an International Congress has taken place at different cities around the world. At the Board Meeting during the sixteenth International Congress held in Sao Paulo, Brazil in 2007, it was decided to change the name to the International Association for Group Psychotherapy and Group Processes to reflect the larger interests of members. It will be under this name that the seventeenth International Congress will be held in Rome. In addition to the major International Congresses, Pacific Rim Regional Congresses and Regional Mediterranean Congresses have also been successfully organised, always attracting large numbers of participants. Since 1973 a number of subgroups have been formed for the different branches of Group Psychotherapy. The development of IAPG has been possible only because of the commitment of Board members and volunteers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFORUMSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207